Like Our Facebook Page

Pages

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State

Labor day has come and gone, and there is an election this November. The campaign season is on. The airwaves, the internet, and what’s left of the print media are saturated with political ads. All of this leads many Americans to wonder who they’re going to vote for. Quite a few realize that the choice is essentially limited to the Democratic scoundrel or the Republican scoundrel. Regardless, to too many people voting is seen as a patriotic, almost sacred duty. Clichés abound about how our forefathers gave their lives so we can have the right to vote today. A lot of people see voting as a way to control the government and preserve our liberties. "If you don’t vote don’t complain", they say. In this article, however, I will explain why none of these positive things attributed to voting are true. In fact the very opposite is usually the case.

What should have been clear for generations is made ridiculously obvious after a year and a half of the Obama administration, namely that elections have failed as a means of controlling or changing the government. The almost seamless continuity of policy from the Bush administration to Obama’s presidency is undeniable and represents only the victory of the special interests in thwarting the people’s will.

Dupes --- a large class, no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities.

Unfortunately, that is the perception, that voting equates to freedom. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we are allowed to choose our dictators doesn’t make us any freer. It merely gives voters the feeling of power and the illusion of control. All the while they are being manipulated into supporting a government that implements policies detrimental to their well being.

What better way is there to get people to follow the law and pay taxes than to convince them that these things are their will? What better way is there to get people to tolerate the government’s evils than by convincing them that the situation is temporary and that they can change the government at the next election? What better way is there to get people to respect elected officials than to convince them that they, the people, chose these scoundrels to represent them? (A mandate, it’s called.) None of these things are true, but the fraud works. Democracy is held to be the best form of government yet devised. The question is best for whom? Certainly not the people.

It does work best for the ruling elites who can hide their evil plans behind a smiling democratic facade. The formula is to give people just enough freedom to feel free but not so much that the government loses control of them. To assure that the people will put up with their laws, antics, and taxes the ruling class must keep the citizens involved. Most will take the easy route and go along, especially when the economy is doing well and they feel prosperous. Thomas Paine warned of this over two centuries ago:

…the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom…

Does all this sound far fetched to you? According to a Georgetown University professor of history Carroll Quigley:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

Unfortunately, he thought this is how the system should work. Dr. Quigley was not some fringe radical either. He was one of President Bill Clinton’s professors and was cited by him as a major influence.

It is past time for people to face the reality of what voting really is, an endorsement of the evils that governments commit. I call on you not to take part in this fraud any more. Withhold your consent! Have the courage to join us in principled nonvoting and commit not to vote ever again. Remember, if you vote don’t complain!

22 comments:

I wish I could disagree with you, but it seems to me that there was once a "party of principle" that started hankering for an election victory (which for that party meant getting votes in the double digits) and so ran a nominee who was . . . a minor wheel in one of the major parties. And the "revolutionary" Taxed Enough Already Party has no stated intention of stopping the wars that do nothing to protect our freedoms or otherwise reducing the government spending that is bankrupting us.

Politically, just because you change the makeup of a clown, you still get a puppet and you don't hold the strings and never have. It's refreshing to read something about what i talk about a lot. It's a friggin' con job folks!

Darren - A most excellent article and very true. I am the Guest and Program Producer for a nationally syndicated talk radio show and would be interested in speaking with you about having you on the show as a guest. Please contact me at my email addy: indianapreppers@yahoo.com.BlessingsErin

There is more that needs to be said about principled nonvoting. The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that "all men are created equal". Under such a tenet no person or group of people, including some group called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of people. This is the basis of individual sovereignty. The Constitution was adopted to form a gov't that would uphold this tenet. The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that "all men are created equal". The individual American is sovereign, not the federal gov’t. See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual - United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415. Regardless of who votes for whom, no one can convey a power that one does not have to any gov’t bureaucrat - we cannot give any gov’t bureaucrat the right to initiate force against any other sovereign. The FED bankrupted the gov't in the 1930's. This is easily evidenced by the correlation between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): title 11 USC, "Bankruptcy", is implemented by title 11 CFR, "Federal Elections". Our vote is simply to elect a bankruptcy "administration". However, bankrupting the federal gov't wasn't enough to make Americans pay the interest on the FED's counterfeit money loans to the gov't. Sovereignty lies with the individual American, not the federal gov't. as evidenced above by the Supreme Court. To get around all of the chains that the Constitution imposes on the federal gov't, Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty. The "Form SS-5" that an applicant uses to apply for a S.S.# is actually a federal employment form. After all, only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes. You know the name of the federal employee - the "taxpayer". "Taxpayer" is a legal term defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine - a federal employee. 26 CFR 2.1-1(b) states that this is the definition of the term as used throughout the Code and the regulations for all calculation of taxes. Now the federal gov’t and its owners have an unlimited reservoir of revenue from the “taxpayers” that can be used to expand the gov’t’s apparent powers. Which of the Founding Fathers would have run to the nanny State for any kind of assistance? Not one! Abolish Social Security, return everyone’s money, with interest, and restore American sovereignty. I have evidenced the entire Social Security Scam on my Blog at LLSTULER.wordpress.com.

What about voting third party or in local elections like school board or even town council honestly?

Im torn. I know I wont vote D or R on the national level again, but Im not sure whether to vote or not. I understand both arguments, especially in regards to third parties (the only thing ill vote for).

I know the feeling, I used to be with the LP. The problem is that they are a 3rd party operating in what is openly called a 2 party system. That kind of tells you something.

Here in PA all the statewide 3rd party candidates are off the ballot. Their signatures were challenged & they were told they could withdraw at no charge or if they get removed after the signatures are checked they could pay $10s of thousands in fines & costs. So they all withdrew.

In '08 the Republicans sued to have the LP presidential candidate removed from the ballot here in PA. They lost, but the point there is that they tried costing thousands in lawyers fees. That's how stacked against 3rd parties the 2 party system is.

Well here in NJ its easy-ish to get on the ballot, so we actually have a number of 3rd parties running around. I understand what you are saying though. This is like the MDC in Zimbabwe when they boycotted the runoff there in 2008, correct? Boycott election and it loses legitimacy.

There has been some third party success in Vermont. The game is rigged, but can still be played if you learn how. The 3rd parties squander their money on unwinnable races when there are many they could win if they put money to it. I wrote an essay about this, but unfortunately its not on a blog, only facebook.

And again, what about local elections: municipal and school board. School board usually goes by under 100 votes, even under 50.

Im just quite torn and perhaps still on DT from being a patriotic citizen. :P

You're on the right track. It's more like boycott the whole electoral process & the govt losses legitimacy. I'm not saying that people should abstain from voting until......No, I'm saying don't ever vote again, period. The idea is to begin phasing out the institution we call government.

That's why I would say don't vote in even local elections. Most of what municipalities do should be done privately anyway. Schools, roads, trash collection, security, all have been done privately before & should be that way again.

Darren Wolfe will be on Call to Decision discussing Principled Nonvoting

Thursday, September 23 · 9:00pm - 10:00pm

The November elections are quickly approaching and Darren Wolfe of The International Libertarian will be on to share with us his take on voting and whether or not it really counts. We will be discussing his latest article "Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State"http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html

Listen to the show at your computer: http://www.gcnlive.com/mediaPlayers/livePlayer.phpCall in numbers 1-800-777- 4403 U.S. Or Out Of Country 1-304-846-4448

Thanks Darren for your principled LeFevreite manuevres here.. re nonvoting...will try to see if our old friend Alan Bock is healthy enough to have visitors(he is a neighbor)...and spend election night mocking and chortling...MOST of my old YAF friends are all happy....NOT ME.....my memory is NOT bad enought to NOT remember '94 and the Judas Goat Gingrich et al(ad nauseum).. a stuck and non- (visibly!) mobile govt is the MOST we can hope for...stuck in the rut...

Darren, We discussed the fake-coin called modern democracy at our Linkedin thread also recently. We both are on the same page about our stand on the self-deception of our age called democracy.

'Not to vote' won't be an effective solution. We must work towards the cause of a 'reinvented democracy'. Your Hollywood star ' Russell Brand' is a champion of this cause. Please read his recent interview appeared in 'The Guardian' at the bottom of my 3 blogs: http://direneedofreinventingdemocracy.blogspot.in/

With right voices raised at every available platform, and by constantly interacting with Media, the main culprits behind the proclamation of the existing false model as the TRUE MODEL of democracy, a day will come when our stand will become the stand of the world.

Please watch the recent rising up of 'COMMON PEOPLE PARTY' in India, and their winning an election in the State of Delhi. It is a real moment of hope for the world that a REINVENTED MODEL is possible ! (see blog on this people's party's win at link: http://changefuelofdemocracy.blogspot.in/

The theory of the NEW DEMOCRATIC MODEL is there at link: http://anewtheoryondemocraticestablishment.blogspot.in/

Hi A, Thanks for the comment. "Not to vote" isn't the solution only a first step. Note that the title of this article is The Beginning of Disengaging From the State. This article isn't a manifesto. It's not that comprehensive. I'm focusing on a specific issue here.

The point is, as the physicians say, first do no harm. Participation in the political system supports the system. Advocating radical reform doesn't change that fact. With all due respect I see you engaging in the mistake of thinking that the problem is the people holding office. That isn't the case. The problem is institutional. Govts are the institutionalization of aggression. To tax they must initiate the use of force on "their" people. To regulate, to enforce drug laws, to draft (just to name a few examples), govts initiate the use use of force unless people submit to the threat. This is the core of the problem. We need to establish a stateless society where all peaceful people interact voluntarily. Force is only justified in self defense. Until we start to live by that principle there will be problems regardless of who wins the elections.